It varies depending on the situation, but I've turned up ISO to 3200 ISO with some pleasing results. This was after the sun went down at dusk when there was still daylight. At the same time I've also done the 800 to 3200 ISO during a fashion show and found it looked great. I settled on 1600 for that fashion show, but nonetheless I got pleasing enough results at 3200.

It's all a matter of how much noise you're willing to accept. The noise floor at 1600 ISO is very film grain like to me so I can accept it. And even 3200 can have a film grain quality to it.

Just remember don't shoot in practically no light and expect 3200 ISO with an exposure increase of 2 stops to save horribly underexposed footage. You should do everything you can to properly expose your image.

"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

timbutt2 wrote:It varies depending on the situation, but I've turned up ISO to 3200 ISO with some pleasing results. This was after the sun went down at dusk when there was still daylight. At the same time I've also done the 800 to 3200 ISO during a fashion show and found it looked great. I settled on 1600 for that fashion show, but nonetheless I got pleasing enough results at 3200.

ISO 3200 + Sigma 18-35 f1.8 could cover any interior situation without controlled scene (no time to light the scene with led panel) like in restaurant wedding situation?

You might be better off using 4K Pocket plus a Metabones Speedbooster with that Sigma. Between the higher clean ISO (thanks to dual gain sensor) on the Pocket plus the extra stop of light from the speed booster, you'll get two (or more) clean stops of low light out of that setup over the same lens on the UMP G2. The cost is that you'll be giving up a couple stops of dynamic range with high ISO on the Pocket vs the 4.6K, so it really depends on the situation.

If the scene is high contrast with only some lower light areas, I'd stick with the UMP G2. While if it is just generally quite dimly lit all around (thus not much dynamic range to worry about), I'd use the 4K Pocket + Speedbooster.

Changing the ISO on the G2 only changes the gamma curve, it does not increase the gain of the sensor.

Therefore whatever you shoot can be changed in post with identical results as if you had done it in camera.

Keep the camera at 800iso and get as much light as you possibly can onto the sensor, use 360 degree shutter and lower framerate if at all possible. Do not expose for 3200iso as doing so only serves to increase noise by reducing light on the sensor.Create a Lut as suggested above to show increased exposure in post.

If you are looking at lenses the sigma art zooms are incredible for low light as is the 50mm F1.4.

You can take it to 6400 IS0 (or more), depending on how much noise reduction you're able to do (Neat Video works best to remove it) and your ability to correct color shifts that happen as the ISO is raised. Also need to be aware of how ISO affects the distribution of the dynamic range relative to middle gray (there's a chart in the Pocket camera manual that illustrates it).

Somebody tell me that theoretically in-camera noise reduction is inferior to noise reduction in post. How i can practically to denoise the pictures shooting at 3200 ISO with UMP G2? How i can use Davince Resove, Neat Video or another sotware to obtain the seam clean image at 3200 ISO like Sony FS5/FS7 internally?

Robert Niessner wrote:Well, that is what native ISO on the FS7 looks like when there is no internal noise reduction applied:

Sorry Robert, but your sample is not clear focussing and i could not see what you are trying to tell me. Could be more precise please?FS7 RAW without internal denoise have same noise like UMP G2 at same high ISO 3200?

Robert Niessner wrote:Well, that is what native ISO on the FS7 looks like when there is no internal noise reduction applied:

Sorry Robert, but your sample is not clear focussing and i could not see what you are trying to tell me. Could be more precise please?FS7 RAW without internal denoise have same noise like UMP G2 at same high ISO 3200?

It is all about the noise. Right click the image and select "open in new tab" to see it in full resolution.The focus doesn't matter (I can't show more of the frame, as this is footage from a client).

This is how the FS7 looks like on a well lit greenscreen in ISO2000 (don't know the f-stop). It has much more noise than the UMP G2 in ISO 3200.

Robert Niessner wrote:This is how the FS7 looks like on a well lit greenscreen in ISO2000 (don't know the f-stop). It has much more noise than the UMP G2 in ISO 3200.

Robert, all i want to know is how i can get same clean picture if i shooting with UMP G2 at 3200 ISO and i use software denoise versus if i shooting with FS7 and i use internal camera denoise. Can tell me what technique i must to use it to obtain comparable results?

The best result I ever obtained is by neat video. Usually I shoot neat video card ( a picture with different target) in the same situation of light of shooting, I repeat if I change location or iso.This help me to clean up noise and not dectails from shooting of Blackmagic Design cameras, Sony cameras, Panasonic cameras and Fuji cameras.Using neat video target allow you to clean up better the noise, and keep dectails.Neat video allow you to select kind and level of noise frequency to remove.

Too often in camera denoise are too aggressive.If I shoot 4k to fhd I use in camera denoiser but I can (time) and I need (4K delivery) I prefer to avoid in camera denoise and I prefer to denoise shooting with near video.I had 3 980ti that allow me to render fast denoise step with near video and resolve.If I had less time some times I use temporal and spatial denoise of resolve which is good but more aggressive than neat video.

Michael Moore wrote:All i want to know is how i can get same clean picture if i shooting with UMP G2 at 3200 ISO and i use software denoise versus if i shooting with FS7 and i use internal camera denoise.

They are different systems. If you need a camera to perform exactly like the FS7, perhaps it makes more sense to simply use an FS7. The Ursa Mini Pro G2 works amazingly well up to 1600 ISO. At 3200 ISO, you may get some fixed pattern noise that is difficult (if not impossible) to completely remove depending on how well exposed the image is and where you set the shadows in the grade. When I know that I'm going to be facing consistently low light levels, instead of the G2 I use a 4K Pocket + Metabones speed booster. The combo costs about $2K or can be rented for cheap, and is pretty easy to find in most markets these days. The Pocket records to the same codecs as the UMP G2 and the image matches well without much fuss in post.

Jamie LeJeune wrote:The Ursa Mini Pro G2 works amazingly well up to 1600 ISO. At 3200 ISO, you may get some fixed pattern noise that is difficult (if not impossible) to completely remove depending on how well exposed the image is and where you set the shadows in the grade.

You are not wrong. As I mentioned, it depends on how well exposed the image is and where the shadows are in the grade. Those are variables that different users of the G2 don't hold constant. Some users shoot a stop or two (or more) underexposed and then (predictably) complain that there is noise in the image. Other people expose properly, but want to pull up the shadows on their grades, thus digging below the noise floor and revealing FPN. But, if exposed well, and graded with a standard transform or curve that doesn't pull up the the shadows, yes 3200 ISO can work just fine.

Best thing is just to shoot some tests using your usual method of setting exposure and running the images through your normal post workflow to see if you get the results you want.

Some people told that their UMP G2 dont have FPN even at high ISO. Its a lottery to give a good sensor in camera?BM services replace the camera if you sent a pictures with FPN?

people can told they not meet fpn also at high iso be cause they expose correctly high iso.

nice fpn, right? this FPN is from canon cinema camera.every camera had fpn if underexposed heavely.sometimes someone see FPN on correctly exposed picture, but it's a unlucky situation. i shooted many pictures with tons of cameras and if you not underexpose and not push up shadow heavely you see quite good camera.if your fpn appear on right picture, you can sent to bmd to recalibrate sensor, but usually FPN is from heavy underexposed picture and worst developed picture. i remember a good thread here about correctly developing of dark picture to rise up light without to build too much noise and fpn.

Like a few other people said, it really depends on the situation. With bad orange and weak street lights, I get tons of FPN at ISO 1600+. But in a well controlled environnement with good quality lights, I've used ISO 3200 shots for commercial work.

That brings up a good point — all digital cameras, including BMD cameras, will be noisier under tungsten light than under daylight. Why? Because tungsten light sources have hardly any blue in them, so the blue channel gets very little signal under tungsten, thus leading to a noisier image. So, you will likely find ISO 3200 works better under daylight balanced lighting than under tungsten. https://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/sensorcolorbalance.html